Johnson v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 67

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Request For Preliminary Injunctive Relief Be Denied (Doc. 32 , 34 ), ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Motion For Court Order Be Denied (ECF Nos. 35 , 47 ), ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Settlement Conference (ECF Nos. 55 , 58 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/21/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:09-cv–1264-AWI-SMS PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

L. GONZALEZ, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 32, 34)

13

Defendants.

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER
BE DENIED

16

(ECF Nos. 35, 47)

17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

14

18
/ (ECF Nos. 55, 58)
19
20

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is proceeding on the

22

complaint filed July 21, 2009, against Defendants Gonzalez and Murrieta for excessive force in

23

violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

24

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

25

On January 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

26

recommending that Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. The parties were

27

given thirty days to file objections and none have been filed. On February 24, 2011, the Magistrate

28

Judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a court order
1

1

be denied. The parties were given thirty days to file objections and none were filed.

2

On March 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled motion to be placed in early settlement

3

program, which the Court construes to be a motion to set a settlement conference. Defendants filed

4

a motion for summary judgment on March 30, 2011. On March 31, 2011, Defendants filed an

5

objection to the settlement conference being set.

6

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize settlement discussions at any pretrial

7

conference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c)(9). While federal courts have the authority to require the parties to

8

engage in settlement conferences, they have no authority to coerce settlements. Goss Graphic

9

Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 267 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2001.) Defendants have indicated

10

to the Court that they are not willing to participate in a settlement conference. No settlement

11

conference will be scheduled until such time as both parties agree to participate in one. Therefore

12

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

13

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

14

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings

15

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

The findings and recommendations, filed January 18, 2011, is adopted in full;

18

2.

Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief filed January 12, 2011, is

19

DENIED;

20

3.

The findings and recommendations, filed February 24, 2011, is adopted in full;

21

4.

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order filed January 26, 2011, is DENIED; and

22

5.

Plaintiff’s motion for settlement conference filed March 29, 2011, is DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:
0m8i78

April 21, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2